We imagine it to be natural, genuine, one of the symbols of the purity of nature. But honey today also tells another story, that of an environment increasingly contaminated by pesticides and persistent chemicals such as PFAS.
This is confirmed by a recent report from the reference laboratories ofEuropean Union Reference Laboratories for Pesticides (EURL)with offices in Freiburg and Stuttgart, which analyzed 187 honey samples with the aim of identifying the presence of pesticides, other active substances and environmental contaminants.
Numerous varieties of honey were analyzed in the study: the most frequent were those without a specific indication (around 40% of the samples) and unspecified flower honey (30%), while the remaining 30% included distinct varieties such as acacia, woodland, orange blossom, lavender and rapeseed, as well as rarer and more exotic types such as manuka, eucalyptus, broom and avocado.
The honey investigation
Honey is one of the most popular foods in Europe, a natural sweetener widely used on tables across the continent. The EU is the world’s second largest producer after China, but domestic production cannot meet demand, which is why over 150,000 tonnes are imported every year from countries such as Ukraine, China, Argentina, Mexico, New Zealand and Brazil.
As can easily be understood, bees, when collecting nectar and pollen, come into contact with agricultural pesticides and can transfer residues of these substances to the honey they produce. At the same time, other environmental contaminants can end up in honey via air, water and soil, requiring in-depth analyzes to understand the extent of this phenomenon.
For this reason, the two European Reference Laboratories for pesticides — the EURL-AO in Freiburg and the EURL-SRM in Stuttgart — conducted a pilot study between 2020 and 2024, examining a total of 187 honey samples from 29 different countries.
The geographical distribution of the samples was as follows:
China, Spain and Germany were the most represented countries. Italy is included in the list of origin of European honeys, but no detailed data is available on the exact number of Italian samples tested nor on whether specific limits were exceeded.
The results of the study showed that all the samples analyzed contained at least five different substances, with a total of 135 quantifiable compounds and approximately 50 additional compounds detected only in traces. The most common substances, present in all samples, were phosphonic acid and copper, natural elements in foods that do not represent an immediate toxicological risk.
Other contaminants detected include bromide and cyanuric acid, with some bromide levels exceeding maximum allowable residue limits.
A particularly significant figure concerns PFAS: trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), one of the so-called “forever chemicals”, was found in 79% of the samples. Although the levels detected are not considered dangerous for humans according to current knowledge, their widespread presence represents a clear alarm bell on global environmental pollution (as if further confirmation had been needed!).
As regards pesticides, the laboratories detected glyphosate residues in 28 samples, with maximum limits exceeded in four cases (samples from Germany, the United States, Brazil and Argentina). Traces of other plant protection agents also emerged such as the fungicide azoxystrobin (exceeded in a Polish sample), chlorate and the alkaloid matrine, the latter especially in Chinese acacia honey.
The study also considered the main substances used in beekeeping, such as anti-Varroa acaricides: coumaphos (29% of the samples), amitraz metabolites (12% and 21%), thymol (9%), fluvalinate (4%) and propargite (3%). In almost all cases, the levels were well below regulatory limits.
In summary, this pilot study demonstrates that honey, while remaining a safe food for human consumption, can contain a wide range of chemicals, from pesticide residues to PFAS, underlining the importance of constant monitoring to protect both consumers and the bees themselves.
The experts from Freiburg and Stuttgart write:
Despite the numerous results, honey can still be consumed without worries. The pesticide levels detected were mostly well below the applicable maximum levels and mostly very low. However, the results demonstrate that honey analysis as part of food monitoring is important and should be continued, as valid maximum levels were also exceeded. The results of this pilot monitoring program clarified the relevance and prevalence of individual active ingredients in honey. This allows EU reference laboratories to recommend a targeted range of analyzes to the European Commission for monitoring, thus making an important contribution to consumer protection in all EU Member States.
Differences between European and imported honeys
The study did not highlight large overall differences between European and imported honeys in terms of the frequency of positive results, but some substances showed significant geographical trends. The herbicide 2,4-D and glyphosate were detected much more often in honey from South America and India than in European honey. In contrast, substances such as mepiquat, coumaphos, acetamiprid and thiacloprid are more frequent in EU honey.
A particularly relevant aspect concerns neonicotinoids, known for their risk to bees. Acetamiprid, the only neonicotinoid still authorized in the EU for open field use, albeit with some restrictions, was found in 38% of European honeys but only in 18% of non-EU honeys. Other neonicotinoids, such as thiacloprid, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, which are banned in the EU, have also been detected, albeit at very low levels.
These data confirm how, although there is no clear general difference, honey still reflects the different agricultural practices and regulations of the various countries, with direct implications for the safety of bees and the quality of the product itself.
